I had a little difficulty in section 3 where Shepherd discusses the difference between difficulty and obscurity in poety. He says: "All obscure poetry is difficult, but ... not all difficult poetry is obscure. Obscurity is a lack of clarity; it is a flaw....[it] is always a defect" (5). He then goes on to say that poets should always strive for "clarity of the materials, of the saying and showing itself, not of what it means or how it's to be interpreted." This to me is an ambiguous statement; who's to define what is obscure and what isn't? The poet may think his poem, although difficult to interpret, is perfectly clear in what it says; it may be difficult, but it is not obscure. A person may read the same poem and be completely confused about what the poet is even saying, thus labeling the poem "obscure." So how does anyone know whether a poem just contains one or some of the multiple types of difficulty or if it is obscure? ALso, I just thought of something else: if the poem is not clear in what it is saying, wouldn't that just be explicative difficulty and not obscurity? What do you all think? - lma-c Feb 26, 2008
Explicative difficulty and obscurity are two seperate items. The point Shepherd is trying to make is that something can be difficult but not obscure. Let's look at this from the perspective of a novel. In the novel "The Invisible Man", many parts were difficult but not obscure. It was difficult to understand certain aspects of the novel such as the real feeling of identity crises that the narrator underwent, but through some careful analysis, one could clearly deduce the identity loss of the narrator. This identity loss was not just outright stated; rather delivered in a more moving and powerful manner of a first-hand account of this problem. It was a difficult concept to understand, and yes, possibly a little less clear to the reader at first; however, when one analyzes the novel, there is only one clear conclusion about the problem of the narrator: he has been devastated by identity loss. If "The Invisible Man" was obscure, then one could, upon analysis, deduce multiple conflicting conclusions, which would reflect obscurity; instead, though the novel does require some difficult, tough analysis for one to understand the full effect, only one clear-cut message can be rationally deduced. Thus, "The Invisible Man" is not obscure.- TMc-c Feb 26, 2008
I think that it all comes down to the audience the poet intended his or her work to be for. If they are the ultimate audience, the piece was made for them, and they still don't understand or comprehend what the poet is saying, then it must be obscurity. Of course, other audiences are going to struggle with the true meaning. A poet can read his/her poem 10 years later and it can appear obscure as well. It's a matter of time, interpretation, and audience. Obscurity is a state of mind just like many other classification titles. Not to mention, if specific things about the author, background, history, or setting are left out, it just makes the piece that much more difficult to interpret. Obscure seems to be such an absolute, while difficulty seems to be connected to experience and understanding. Once again, it's all a matter of who is reading the poem. - bzw-c Feb 26, 2008
We discussed in class what exactly was obscurity, and we seemed to have come to a general consensus that obscurity was intentionally confusing the reader without a real clear cut purpose. And difficulty was using erudite information or odd forms or words but with a purpose. Difficulty may involve some deep thinking on what certain lines or words mean, but their meanings can be eventually found, while obscurity is finding a way to write a poem in such a manner that only the poet can understand it at all. I don't obscurity has anything to with the failure of the reader to comprehend the poem because a reader can fail to do so at a particular time but come back to it at a later time with more knowledge or a fresh view and figure it out.- MSu-c Feb 26, 2008
I think it is alright to be difficult in poetry, but I will say that obscurity should be something that poet's try to avoid at all costs. Obscurity creates the very likely possibility that no one will understand what the poet is saying which in a sense makes the poem useless. Obscurity to me reeks of an elitist attitude where I go "congratulations, you know more than me," but who really cares what you know unless you can express it in a way that someone can understand. I just think that if something is so obscure that no one can quite understand it, that it's useless because then the poem is failing to get any idea across and I feel like a poem should at least express an idea that someone somewhere can comprehend. I don't have a problem with difficulty though so long as it's a poet not being difficult for the sake of being difficult as I feel that a poem is almost like a conversation between the reader and the poet and sometimes that means writing difficultly, but sometimes it means writing simply. The trick for the poet is to know what's appropriate for the situation.
Being difficult for the sake of being difficult frankly annoys me, and when it comes to music that means I can't stand bands such as Dream Theater which is basically a band of musicians who are incredibly proficient at their instruments, but their music is horrible because all it is is a flashy display of their skills without any real originality or anything to say really and I'd rather listen to perhaps The Flaming Lips because while they're nowhere near as proficient at their instruments, they produce catchier, better material that I find appealing because it's original. I just don't think I'll ever understand why people choose to do things just for the sake of being difficult. If being difficult is what comes naturally and you can do something interesting and appealing, then I think it's alright to be difficult, but otherwise I feel like poets should just write appropriately given the situation they're trying to express.- KRi-c Feb 26, 2008
Let me start by saying that I have a bias towards poetry. It is not that I think that all poetry is bad, but I am very picky in terms of what I enjoy reading. So when I read the above quote, my first thought was that Sheperd was actually speaking critically. I think that one of the problems that we face as students is the preconcieved notion that we must accept critically acclaimed works as good. I just do not believe that to be true. Some poems that are famous for whatever reason just stink. Of course they say it is not fair to judge artistic expression, but let's be honest with ourselves. If there are excellent poets, then there must be less excellent ones. How does that relate to Sheperd? I think that he recognizes that not all poetry is good. He must have run across poems that are confusing but not difficult. That is, there is no deeper meaning that we must think about. The metaphor of the poem may be a poor one, the form may not fit the message well, the syntax may be bad - whatever the reason, the poem is not well put together. A poem may include any of these or a whole plethora of other "problems" if there is a significant literary purpose for doing so. A good poet knows how to break the rules. But these obscure poems are hard to follow or understand because the poet did not know how to write a good poem. That is the only way Sheperd could justify calling a poem obscure, as far as I can tell. - TRu-c Feb 26, 2008 I think that Shepherd was trying to warn poets not to use long or difficult words just for the sake of trying to write a difficult poem. This is when a poem becomes obscure. The writer has confused the reader without a reason for doing so other than they think if they can confuse the reader then they have written a difficult poem. I think that it is often believed that a poem must be difficult to understand in order for it to be "good." This belief causes the writing of obscure poems. It is hard to see how a poem is difficult, but not obscure. I think that what makes a poem difficult needs to be better defined before we can determine how a difficult poem is not obscure. I think that difficulty is determined by the language that is used, the literary devices used, the rhythm used, and other similar factors. A poem that is obscure is one that doesn't seem to have a purpose for the readers. Poems that are difficult may take time to analyze and understand, but they eventually communicate something meaningful. Obscure poems never communicate such meaning.- bga-c Feb 27, 2008
Alright, I understand all of what you said bga, but I still have one question. Does a poem have to make sense at all? I understand the difference between obscure and difficult, but I am still wondering why a poem shouldn't be obscure. What if someone likes reading a certain combination of words with no connecting relevance--are they wrong? Can't obscure poetry direct the mind in a way that it has never been before, receiving a different type of attention than regular prose receives? I believe the answer is yes. Then why do we have to discredit obscure poetry? What if the poet is trying to communicate chaos? I believe that an obsure poem would do the trick in that situation and many others. Any thoughts? - cdu-c Feb 27, 2008
I get what your saying Duffy, but I don't think that a random assortment of words constitutes poetry. I mean yea it will get the mind working and looking for connections or getting new ideas but it's not really language is it? I think at least a poem should be coherent and readable otherwise it's something other than language. If we just wrote down random words, it just seems to me that we're moving closer to like the study of the subconscious and Freudian psychology, seeing the unique connections and ideas that different people come up with. Sure, the "poet" would be writing down words that pops into his head and have some semi-logical arrangement for him, but to most other people who would see it, it would be a dictionary that got mixed up. There has to be some sort of boundary to what poetry is, otherwise why wouldn't random markings on a page get someone thinking and then be poetry? What would stop a picture from being poetry? It just seems like an actual language has to be evident in the poem.- mka-c Feb 27, 2008
mka I entirely agree. There have to be lines drawn. But at the same time, I don't think obscurity is always a bad thing. Can't a poet intentionally be obscure? What is the difference from being obscure and ambiguous, and why would obscurity be a flaw and not ambiguity? Some poets can intentionally be indriect and open ended in order to let the reader interpret. You can still convey an emotion or situation and still let the reader feel how they wish or fill in the blanks according to their own personal experiences.
However, I can sincerely see how Shephard would discredit obscurity. ALthough I don't necessarily think it's absolute and appropriate in all cases, it does seem that if the poet cannot take an experience and eloquently express it without losing its meaning, then he or she has failed. In most cases of poetry, the objective of the poet is to make the audience experience and understand the message, as if they were feeling it themself. So although I think there are exceptions to this rule, I can see how obscurity is a big flaw in many eyes. - kco-c
Well, I pretty much agree with this point of view on difficulty and obscurity, with a slight modification. Obscurity can be used as a tool to apply the piece to a broader range of themes, and to express a disjointed emotion rather than an emotion in a particular setting. Some poets start to do this a little unintentionally, but I don't think it wrecks the poem. But yeah, difficulty is never the intention of a good poet (almost always) it just so happens that students like us who aren't at the level of reading fancy poems might not get the high-strung language that they use, so for us its difficult, but for them it's natural. And this language might lead to what you call 'obscurity' but that's not the same kind of obscurity the essay's referring to. That's just difficulty, plain and simple. Obscurity is a theme you can't point down, regardless of difficulty, difficulty deals with being unable to decipher what really is there plain and simple for others. So obscurity is what's most often bad. - AZU-C Feb 28, 2008
If we define obscurity as a lack of clarity, I cannot always say that it is bad. For example, I unfortunately do not have a poetry book with me but let's imagine a poem that is very hard to understand and has a plethora of difficult words and numerous symbols and metaphors and to me, this poem does not make sense at all. Let's say that even after I look up the words and become knowledged about the poem, it just does not make sense. Obviously, my metaphor here is not very clear because I do not have an actual example, but I know there are poems like these. I know that there are poems that I do not understand. However, I would not say that it is a defect. Perhaps it makes perfect sense to the poet him or herself. Honestly, that is all that matters usually because the poem is that poet's work of art and they can do whatever they want with it. - ptr-c Mar 13, 2008
Explicative difficulty and obscurity are two seperate items. The point Shepherd is trying to make is that something can be difficult but not obscure. Let's look at this from the perspective of a novel. In the novel "The Invisible Man", many parts were difficult but not obscure. It was difficult to understand certain aspects of the novel such as the real feeling of identity crises that the narrator underwent, but through some careful analysis, one could clearly deduce the identity loss of the narrator. This identity loss was not just outright stated; rather delivered in a more moving and powerful manner of a first-hand account of this problem. It was a difficult concept to understand, and yes, possibly a little less clear to the reader at first; however, when one analyzes the novel, there is only one clear conclusion about the problem of the narrator: he has been devastated by identity loss. If "The Invisible Man" was obscure, then one could, upon analysis, deduce multiple conflicting conclusions, which would reflect obscurity; instead, though the novel does require some difficult, tough analysis for one to understand the full effect, only one clear-cut message can be rationally deduced. Thus, "The Invisible Man" is not obscure.-
I think that it all comes down to the audience the poet intended his or her work to be for. If they are the ultimate audience, the piece was made for them, and they still don't understand or comprehend what the poet is saying, then it must be obscurity. Of course, other audiences are going to struggle with the true meaning. A poet can read his/her poem 10 years later and it can appear obscure as well. It's a matter of time, interpretation, and audience. Obscurity is a state of mind just like many other classification titles. Not to mention, if specific things about the author, background, history, or setting are left out, it just makes the piece that much more difficult to interpret. Obscure seems to be such an absolute, while difficulty seems to be connected to experience and understanding. Once again, it's all a matter of who is reading the poem. -
We discussed in class what exactly was obscurity, and we seemed to have come to a general consensus that obscurity was intentionally confusing the reader without a real clear cut purpose. And difficulty was using erudite information or odd forms or words but with a purpose. Difficulty may involve some deep thinking on what certain lines or words mean, but their meanings can be eventually found, while obscurity is finding a way to write a poem in such a manner that only the poet can understand it at all. I don't obscurity has anything to with the failure of the reader to comprehend the poem because a reader can fail to do so at a particular time but come back to it at a later time with more knowledge or a fresh view and figure it out.-
I think it is alright to be difficult in poetry, but I will say that obscurity should be something that poet's try to avoid at all costs. Obscurity creates the very likely possibility that no one will understand what the poet is saying which in a sense makes the poem useless. Obscurity to me reeks of an elitist attitude where I go "congratulations, you know more than me," but who really cares what you know unless you can express it in a way that someone can understand. I just think that if something is so obscure that no one can quite understand it, that it's useless because then the poem is failing to get any idea across and I feel like a poem should at least express an idea that someone somewhere can comprehend. I don't have a problem with difficulty though so long as it's a poet not being difficult for the sake of being difficult as I feel that a poem is almost like a conversation between the reader and the poet and sometimes that means writing difficultly, but sometimes it means writing simply. The trick for the poet is to know what's appropriate for the situation.
Being difficult for the sake of being difficult frankly annoys me, and when it comes to music that means I can't stand bands such as Dream Theater which is basically a band of musicians who are incredibly proficient at their instruments, but their music is horrible because all it is is a flashy display of their skills without any real originality or anything to say really and I'd rather listen to perhaps The Flaming Lips because while they're nowhere near as proficient at their instruments, they produce catchier, better material that I find appealing because it's original. I just don't think I'll ever understand why people choose to do things just for the sake of being difficult. If being difficult is what comes naturally and you can do something interesting and appealing, then I think it's alright to be difficult, but otherwise I feel like poets should just write appropriately given the situation they're trying to express.-
Let me start by saying that I have a bias towards poetry. It is not that I think that all poetry is bad, but I am very picky in terms of what I enjoy reading. So when I read the above quote, my first thought was that Sheperd was actually speaking critically. I think that one of the problems that we face as students is the preconcieved notion that we must accept critically acclaimed works as good. I just do not believe that to be true. Some poems that are famous for whatever reason just stink. Of course they say it is not fair to judge artistic expression, but let's be honest with ourselves. If there are excellent poets, then there must be less excellent ones. How does that relate to Sheperd? I think that he recognizes that not all poetry is good. He must have run across poems that are confusing but not difficult. That is, there is no deeper meaning that we must think about. The metaphor of the poem may be a poor one, the form may not fit the message well, the syntax may be bad - whatever the reason, the poem is not well put together. A poem may include any of these or a whole plethora of other "problems" if there is a significant literary purpose for doing so. A good poet knows how to break the rules. But these obscure poems are hard to follow or understand because the poet did not know how to write a good poem. That is the only way Sheperd could justify calling a poem obscure, as far as I can tell. -
I think that Shepherd was trying to warn poets not to use long or difficult words just for the sake of trying to write a difficult poem. This is when a poem becomes obscure. The writer has confused the reader without a reason for doing so other than they think if they can confuse the reader then they have written a difficult poem. I think that it is often believed that a poem must be difficult to understand in order for it to be "good." This belief causes the writing of obscure poems. It is hard to see how a poem is difficult, but not obscure. I think that what makes a poem difficult needs to be better defined before we can determine how a difficult poem is not obscure. I think that difficulty is determined by the language that is used, the literary devices used, the rhythm used, and other similar factors. A poem that is obscure is one that doesn't seem to have a purpose for the readers. Poems that are difficult may take time to analyze and understand, but they eventually communicate something meaningful. Obscure poems never communicate such meaning.-
Alright, I understand all of what you said bga, but I still have one question. Does a poem have to make sense at all? I understand the difference between obscure and difficult, but I am still wondering why a poem shouldn't be obscure. What if someone likes reading a certain combination of words with no connecting relevance--are they wrong? Can't obscure poetry direct the mind in a way that it has never been before, receiving a different type of attention than regular prose receives? I believe the answer is yes. Then why do we have to discredit obscure poetry? What if the poet is trying to communicate chaos? I believe that an obsure poem would do the trick in that situation and many others. Any thoughts? -
I get what your saying Duffy, but I don't think that a random assortment of words constitutes poetry. I mean yea it will get the mind working and looking for connections or getting new ideas but it's not really language is it? I think at least a poem should be coherent and readable otherwise it's something other than language. If we just wrote down random words, it just seems to me that we're moving closer to like the study of the subconscious and Freudian psychology, seeing the unique connections and ideas that different people come up with. Sure, the "poet" would be writing down words that pops into his head and have some semi-logical arrangement for him, but to most other people who would see it, it would be a dictionary that got mixed up. There has to be some sort of boundary to what poetry is, otherwise why wouldn't random markings on a page get someone thinking and then be poetry? What would stop a picture from being poetry? It just seems like an actual language has to be evident in the poem.-
mka I entirely agree. There have to be lines drawn. But at the same time, I don't think obscurity is always a bad thing. Can't a poet intentionally be obscure? What is the difference from being obscure and ambiguous, and why would obscurity be a flaw and not ambiguity? Some poets can intentionally be indriect and open ended in order to let the reader interpret. You can still convey an emotion or situation and still let the reader feel how they wish or fill in the blanks according to their own personal experiences.
However, I can sincerely see how Shephard would discredit obscurity. ALthough I don't necessarily think it's absolute and appropriate in all cases, it does seem that if the poet cannot take an experience and eloquently express it without losing its meaning, then he or she has failed. In most cases of poetry, the objective of the poet is to make the audience experience and understand the message, as if they were feeling it themself. So although I think there are exceptions to this rule, I can see how obscurity is a big flaw in many eyes. -
Well, I pretty much agree with this point of view on difficulty and obscurity, with a slight modification. Obscurity can be used as a tool to apply the piece to a broader range of themes, and to express a disjointed emotion rather than an emotion in a particular setting. Some poets start to do this a little unintentionally, but I don't think it wrecks the poem. But yeah, difficulty is never the intention of a good poet (almost always) it just so happens that students like us who aren't at the level of reading fancy poems might not get the high-strung language that they use, so for us its difficult, but for them it's natural. And this language might lead to what you call 'obscurity' but that's not the same kind of obscurity the essay's referring to. That's just difficulty, plain and simple. Obscurity is a theme you can't point down, regardless of difficulty, difficulty deals with being unable to decipher what really is there plain and simple for others. So obscurity is what's most often bad. -
If we define obscurity as a lack of clarity, I cannot always say that it is bad. For example, I unfortunately do not have a poetry book with me but let's imagine a poem that is very hard to understand and has a plethora of difficult words and numerous symbols and metaphors and to me, this poem does not make sense at all. Let's say that even after I look up the words and become knowledged about the poem, it just does not make sense. Obviously, my metaphor here is not very clear because I do not have an actual example, but I know there are poems like these. I know that there are poems that I do not understand. However, I would not say that it is a defect. Perhaps it makes perfect sense to the poet him or herself. Honestly, that is all that matters usually because the poem is that poet's work of art and they can do whatever they want with it. -